I admit my inadequacies in “pure philosophical thinking”, but from all the previous, I can only come to a conclusion that:

Yes, there are worlds in reality, regardless if we can see them or not.
Yes, we can imagine worlds which do not exist.But any claim that reality or even an imaginary reality would stay the same must be false. In a dynamic universe, nothing stays the same and reality changes with every single instant in time.

The discussion is just a mental exercise, without any bearing on reality itself.

Why can’t we imagine a world where nothing changes? Why presume that all imagined wolds must be “dynamic”?

In a static universe there would be no imagination. Thought itself is a dynamic process. Thus imagining a static universe is a contradiction, unless we discard logic itself. IMO, even purely philosophical considerations must be consistent with the scientific method.

IMO, anything static would cease to exist instantaneously. Quantum would stop and reality could not become manifest.
True, we can imagine anything, but then we leave the world of philosophy and enter the world of pure fantasy.

Signature

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.W4U

In a static universe there would be no imagination. Thought itself is a dynamic process. Thus imagining a static universe is a contradiction, unless we discard logic itself. IMO, even purely philosophical considerations must be consistent with the scientific method.

I don’t buy this. If by “static” you mean unchanging, we use concepts that don’t change all the time. The number 1 for example. I’m not quite sure what you mean with the “scientific method” as science covers empirical investigations of the natural world. Pure logic has nothing to do the scientific method and we can use its structures to come up with all types of logically consistent, but not accurate with real world facts for arguments all the time. We can use it for things that have nothing to do with what we can apply the scientific method to. Logic is not consistent with the scientific method- the scientific method must be consistent with logic.

In a static universe there would be no imagination. Thought itself is a dynamic process. Thus imagining a static universe is a contradiction, unless we discard logic itself. IMO, even purely philosophical considerations must be consistent with the scientific method.

I don’t buy this. If by “static” you mean unchanging, we use concepts that don’t change all the time. The number 1 for example. I’m not quite sure what you mean with the “scientific method” as science covers empirical investigations of the natural world. Pure logic has nothing to do the scientific method and we can use its structures to come up with all types of logically consistent, but not accurate with real world facts for arguments all the time. We can use it for things that have nothing to do with what we can apply the scientific method to. Logic is not consistent with the scientific method- the scientific method must be consistent with logic.

Your words, “unchanging world”, nothing changes, thus my term “static”.
The number 1 is not a thing in reality (neither static, nor dynamic), it is a symbolic representation used in a dynamic process of calculus. By itself it has no meaning in reality.

I disagree with your statement that logic is not consistent with the scientific method, unless based on a “false” premise. Given correct parameters logic will always come up with the correct answer. Witness computers.
I do recognize the “uncertainty effect” as a logical problematic issue.

Your words, “unchanging world”, nothing changes, thus my term “static”.
The number 1 is not a thing in reality (neither static, nor dynamic), it is a symbolic representation used in a dynamic process of calculus. By itself it has no meaning in reality.

I don’t know what you mean that “it has no meaning in reality.” You’re saying that it doesn’t have a meaning? Or are you just saying that it doesn’t exist in reality? They’re two separate things.

I disagree with your statement that logic is not consistent with the scientific method, unless based on a “false” premise. Given correct parameters logic will always come up with the correct answer. Witness computers.
I do recognize the “uncertainty effect” as a logical problematic issue.

Science is premised on logic, not the other way around. That’s what I meant (and I think that’s what I said).

Your words, “unchanging world”, nothing changes, thus my term “static”.
The number 1 is not a thing in reality (neither static, nor dynamic), it is a symbolic representation used in a dynamic process of calculus. By itself it has no meaning in reality.

I don’t know what you mean that “it has no meaning in reality.” You’re saying that it doesn’t have a meaning? Or are you just saying that it doesn’t exist in reality? They’re two separate things.

I disagree with your statement that logic is not consistent with the scientific method, unless based on a “false” premise. Given correct parameters logic will always come up with the correct answer. Witness computers.
I do recognize the “uncertainty effect” as a logical problematic issue.

Science is premised on logic, not the other way around. That’s what I meant (and I think that’s what I said0.

Ok,
a) statement: 1

What meaning do you attach to this statement?

b) your quotes

1) Pure logic has nothing to do (with) the scientific method
2) Science is premised on logic, not the other way around.

I believe that we are in agreement on the latter.

Signature

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.W4U

StephenLawrence
“To be clear I’m not denying that your TV has an objective shape, or
exists objectively, I’m not sure whether it does or not.” (Italics mine)

The act of saying, “It is.” presupposes a consciousness able to initiate
the sentence. A consciousness presupposes the existence of something to be
conscious of. A consciousness must have something, reality, to be conscious
of before it could think of itself as conscious. The idea that a god could
create a universe out of a void is clearly impossible – he would have nothing
to be conscious of, therefore could not identify himself as conscious, and could
not even know he exists. Consciousness evolved from reality – not the other
way around.
It is our senses that provide us with the evidence of reality, and the validity
of the senses is axiomatic because any attempt to invalidate the senses requires
the use of the senses in the attempt – one can not make a speech or write
an article berating the senses without counting on the sense of hearing or sight.
Our senses provide evidence that something exists. They tell us that something
exists; perspective aids us in identifying what it is.
If one is looking head-on at a television, one sees the vertical and horizontal
dimensions. By looking at it with a new perspective, one can see that it also
has depth. Perspective has no effect on the television – it exists independent of
perspective and the mind. By looking at things with different perspectives, man
increases the sensory data he has to work with. Many of man’s inventions, from
microscopes to the Large Hadron Collider, are designed to help man gain a better
perspective. Applying logic and reason to the sensory data gained from different
perspectives allows us to discover the nature of reality, what it does, and what
it can be made to do.

StephenLawrence
“To be clear I’m not denying that your TV has an objective shape, or
exists objectively, I’m not sure whether it does or not.” (Italics mine)

The act of saying, “It is.” presupposes a consciousness able to initiate
the sentence. A consciousness presupposes the existence of something to be
conscious of. A consciousness must have something, reality, to be conscious
of before it could think of itself as conscious. The idea that a god could
create a universe out of a void is clearly impossible – he would have nothing
to be conscious of, therefore could not identify himself as conscious, and could
not even know he exists. Consciousness evolved from reality – not the other
way around.

I agree,

Reality can exist before there is consciousness of that fact, is proof.
Moreover, life is abundant at all levels of consciousness, from purely neural stimulation to high order thinking,
It requires very little consciousness (sensory stimulation) to thrive and evolve.
The same principle is involved in the “consciousness” (physical/energetic stimulation, universal laws) of the universe, or reality itself. Once begun, it is that way….

Signature

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.W4U

i have to agree with the first post in this discussion and those who say its just a load of nonsense need to accept that just because they cant comprehend something the way someone else does, does not mean its wrong, he has the right idea he is trying to explain, our existence using some of the most basic examples, the best explanation is always the simplist one, altho the one thing i did not agree with is that everything has a beggining and an end there was a beginning and it has never ended we all become a part of something else, positive and negative simply become neutral when they collide, it is far to complicated to explain even using the simplist explanations but it cant hurt to try, i find it quite satisfying knowing that we will never have all the answers, and our desire to explain everything, outlines a promising future for us

Signature

for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction- sir isaac newton

For sake of discussion, how does one improve on being a good or a bad person (character)?

Suppose a six year-old boy visits his grandmother’s farm. While playing in
the fields, he is frightened by a snake.
That night at home in bed, he can’t help thinking that there is a snake under
his bed. He knows that there can’t be a snake there, but he can’t stop the feeling
that there is. He musters up his courage and looks under the bed and sees there
is no snake. The next night the same feeling returns but with less severity. He
looks under the bed again. He does this for a few nights until the feeling does
not return.
It is unlikely that at such a young age and from only a single event, he will
be able to discover any abstract principle. But if he continues to face his fears
as they arise, by the time he is a teenager he should be able to formulate that
abstract principle – man’s conscious mind is in charge of his subconscious mind.
Guided by that principle, man is able to build or re-build his character. If he
does, he will discover that just as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a
being of self-made soul.

For sake of discussion, how does one improve on being a good or a bad person (character)?

Suppose a six year-old boy visits his grandmother’s farm. While playing in
the fields, he is frightened by a snake.
That night at home in bed, he can’t help thinking that there is a snake under
his bed. He knows that there can’t be a snake there, but he can’t stop the feeling
that there is. He musters up his courage and looks under the bed and sees there
is no snake. The next night the same feeling returns but with less severity. He
looks under the bed again. He does this for a few nights until the feeling does
not return.
It is unlikely that at such a young age and from only a single event, he will
be able to discover any abstract principle. But if he continues to face his fears
as they arise, by the time he is a teenager he should be able to formulate that
abstract principle – man’s conscious mind is in charge of his subconscious mind.
Guided by that principle, man is able to build or re-build his character. If he
does, he will discover that just as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a
being of self-made soul.

But is this not also the method of simpler life forms to overcome discomfort.
IMO discomfort is a similar but milder condition than fear, you learn to deal with it in
several ways.

I believe we experience life emotionally, we do that which makes us feel good and
try to avoid doing that which makes us feel bad, regardless if we analyze our actions.
But even so, is that not normal evolutionary process?

The human difference is that we can control our environment, while most other life
is subject to and responds to the environment.

Signature

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.W4U

For sake of discussion, how does one improve on being a good or a bad person (character)?

Suppose a six year-old boy visits his grandmother’s farm. While playing in
the fields, he is frightened by a snake.
That night at home in bed, he can’t help thinking that there is a snake under
his bed. He knows that there can’t be a snake there, but he can’t stop the feeling
that there is. He musters up his courage and looks under the bed and sees there
is no snake. The next night the same feeling returns but with less severity. He
looks under the bed again. He does this for a few nights until the feeling does
not return.
It is unlikely that at such a young age and from only a single event, he will
be able to discover any abstract principle. But if he continues to face his fears
as they arise, by the time he is a teenager he should be able to formulate that
abstract principle – man’s conscious mind is in charge of his subconscious mind.
Guided by that principle, man is able to build or re-build his character. If he
does, he will discover that just as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a
being of self-made soul.

But is this not also the method of simpler life forms to overcome discomfort.
IMO discomfort is a similar but milder condition than fear, you learn to deal with it in
several ways.

I believe we experience life emotionally, we do that which makes us feel good and
try to avoid doing that which makes us feel bad, regardless if we analyze our actions.
But even so, is that not normal evolutionary process?

The human difference is that we can control our environment, while most other life
is subject to and responds to the environment.

Lower life form’s actions are instinctual, and many of them no doubt
experience comfort and discomfort and many more specific feelings such
as fear, hunger and a sex drive. Their feelings are their guide to action.
But only man has the power of reason to guide his actions.
Man does experience life emotionally but they are not always a good
guide to action. Just because it feels good or feels bad does not mean one
should go for it or avoid it. I do not want to imply that one should ignore
one’s emotions – to the contrary, one should identify them, and follow
those that are rational and not those that do not stand to reason.